Tag: Leadership

The German sociologist Max Weber identified three ideal types of leadership in which authority may rest: (1) charismatic, (2) traditional, and (3) rational-legal. In any society or institution, the power of the leader may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these 3 types of leadership.

1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership is founded on the personal traits and gifts of the leader. The more authentic these personal traits are as perceived by the people, the higher is the legitimacy of the leader. People obey the leader, not primarily because of certain laws or traditions, but because of his/her personal talents. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charismatic leadership tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive after the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. Charismatic leaders in history include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Asisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, etc.

In corporate settings, charismatic leaders like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are creative, innovative, and visionary people. They have extraordinary talents that ordinary managers do not possess. They usually introduce innovation, creativity, or unique management style in their business environments.

2. Traditional authority

Traditional leadership is one that is based on some sort of tradition that is handed down from the past. The leader is obeyed by the people as a legitimate leader because of a formal or informal norm handed down by great leaders or managers from the past. This kind of leadership is based on customs and traditions of the business firms. The leader is not usually innovative but conservative. He or she is just continuing what is being practiced by the company based on tradition.

The ordination of a priest by a bishop is an example of traditional authority. The new priest received his power and authority by way of tradition, and people obey him as a legitimate spiritual pastor of the Church. Succession in monarchy is also done through traditional authority. Tradition dictates that only persons with royal blood can ascend to the throne.

3. Rational-Legal Leadership

The last type of leadership proposed by Max Weber is the most common type of authority in modern and contemporary society. This leadership is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. The leader assumes the right to exercise power over the people because the law says so.

The leader’s authority is held by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the offices they hold. The power of government officials, for instance, is determined by the offices to which they are appointed or elected because of their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these offices, they have a certain amount of power. But once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is also lost. Though personal traits also count in the selection process, a fixed law becomes the primary legitimizer of the leader’s capacity to exercise leadership. His authority expires when he retires or becomes incapacitated as stipulated by law.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

What kind of a leader are you? Which type of leadership do you aim to achieve?

Thanks for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

“Business is business” is often the expression entrepreneurs engaging in business whether it be a sole proprietorship, partnership or a corporation. Most managers are educated in a strictly capitalist training, value, and orientation. They often view doing business as a strictly money-earning enterprise. They sometimes forget that doing business also implies forming a group or community of persons with needs and aspiration.

The view of the Church on business as espoused in the Catholic Social Teaching maybe considered a “counter-culture” of the prevailing views of businessmen/women on its nature. This view may be found unacceptable to many entrepreneurs as this requires a radical re-evaluation on what precisely is nature and purpose of business.

Pope John Paul in his social encyclical Centesimus Annus is particularly explicit in characterizing the purpose of business. To him, business is not only a profit-earning enterprise: “the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole society.”

Owners, managers, and workers in a business firm form a community of persons. By “person”, he means that an individual worker in business is not only a “cog in a machine” that performs merely a technical function in a business firm and nothing more.

A “person” for the Pope is a mystery. He or she is not only an individual with intelligence, emotions, feelings, and aspirations but above all, with human rights and dignity as he or she is created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the Blood of Christ and destined to be with Him in the afterlife.

Thus, a member in a business firm, no matter how low is his or her position, deserves respect, a decent wage with social benefits and active participation in the overall direction of the business as part of its entrepreneurial community.

GIF Credits: Giphy.com

Thank you for reading this post. Subscribe or follow this blog for more updates.

1. Mark 10:43-45

“But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be the slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This passage from the Gospel of Mark is considered the central image of a Christian leader– a suffering servant. A leader who serves his/her constituents rather than being served by them. Leadership in the Christian sense is service for the sake of the Kingdom and self-emptying to empower others.

Under this model, the leader does not seek glory and power for his/her self but to promote and protect the common good even if this entails dying to one’s self and disregarding his/her self-interest.

In Catholic Church’s teaching, doing business is a form of service to God and people–the customers. Its ultimate goal is not really profiteering but serving the public by providing consumers with high-quality goods and services in order that they can enjoy the fruits of God’s creation.

A good and Christian leader must then strive to become a servant of God in the business organization, providing the public with quality goods and services.

As managers, they must not abuse their discretionary powers in the workplace but instead empower others to become servants and leaders too in their respective duties and areas of responsibilities.

2. Philippians 2:3

This passage from the Letter of Paul to the Philippians can remind business leaders not to seek selfish ambitions or vain conceit. They must be humble, always conscious that positions of power in the business organization is temporary and meant for service.

Selfish ambition or conceit in the business organization can lead to unhealthy competition, politics, and sidelining of the corporate values just to get ahead of others in the promotion system.

3. 1 Timothy 3:2

“Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…”

This passage reminds business leaders to walk the talk, to witness what they preach in the workplace. A good and Christian leader is one who always provides a good example for others to follow.

4. Proverbs 27:23-24

“Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds; for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.”

Business leaders must not be only conscious about their position of power and authority, of the benefits and rewards they could get if they perform well in the company.

They must, first of all, know the real conditions of their employees in the workplace. They should check whether they are properly remunerated with a just wage by the company.

Corporate productivity is often tied up with the level of satisfaction of the workers with their wage and social benefits.

5. Isaiah 41:10

“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”

In Church’s teachings, work is connected with one’s spirituality: A leader’s duty and role in the company must be part of his/her spiritual life.

A Christian leader is one who is always conscious that the work of managing others in the workplace is part of his/her quest for salvation. Sanctification is not only expressed inside the Church but anywhere since God’s presence is everywhere. Thus, if business leaders are always aware of God’s presence in the workplace, he/she would never be fearful in his decisions and actions.

GIF Credits: Giphy.com

Thanks for reading this post. Subscribe or follow via email for more updates.

The German sociologist Max Weber identified three ideal types of leadership in which authority may rest: (1) charismatic, (2) traditional, and (3) rational-legal. In any society or institution, the power of the leader may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these 3 types of leadership.

1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership is founded on the personal traits and gifts of the leader. The more authentic these personal traits are as perceived by the people, the higher is the legitimacy of the leader. People obey the leader, not primarily because of certain laws or traditions, but because of his/her personal talents. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charismatic leadership tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive after the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. Charismatic leaders in history include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Asisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, etc.

In corporate settings, charismatic leaders like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are creative, innovative, and visionary people. They have extraordinary talents that ordinary managers do not possess. They usually introduce innovation, creativity, or unique management style in their business environments.

2. Traditional authority

Traditional leadership is one that is based on some sort of tradition that is handed down from the past. The leader is obeyed by the people as a legitimate leader because of a formal or informal norm handed down by great leaders or managers from the past. This kind of leadership is based on customs and traditions of the business firms. The leader is not usually innovative but conservative. He or she is just continuing what is being practiced by the company based on tradition.

The ordination of a priest by a bishop is an example of traditional authority. The new priest received his power and authority by way of tradition, and people obey him as a legitimate spiritual pastor of the Church. Succession in monarchy is also done through traditional authority. Tradition dictates that only persons with royal blood can ascend to the throne.

3. Rational-Legal Leadership

The last type of leadership proposed by Max Weber is the most common type of authority in modern and contemporary society. This leadership is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. The leader assumes the right to exercise power over the people because the law says so.

The leader’s authority is held by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the offices they hold. The power of government officials, for instance, is determined by the offices to which they are appointed or elected because of their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these offices, they have a certain amount of power. But once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is also lost. Though personal traits also count in the selection process, a fixed law becomes the primary legitimizer of the leader’s capacity to exercise leadership. His authority expires when he retires or becomes incapacitated as stipulated by law.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

What kind of a leader are you? Which type of leadership do you aim to achieve?

Thanks for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

The German sociologist Max Weber identified three ideal types of leadership in which authority may rest: (1) charismatic, (2) traditional, and (3) rational-legal. In any society or institution, the power of the leader may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these 3 types of leadership.

1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership is founded on the personal traits and gifts of the leader. The more authentic these personal traits are as perceived by the people, the higher is the legitimacy of the leader. People obey the leader, not primarily because of certain laws or traditions, but because of his/her personal talents. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charismatic leadership tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive after the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. Charismatic leaders in history include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Asisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, etc.

In corporate settings, charismatic leaders like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are creative, innovative, and visionary people. They have extraordinary talents that ordinary managers do not possess. They usually introduce innovation, creativity, or unique management style in their business environments.

2. Traditional authority

Traditional leadership is one that is based on some sort of tradition that is handed down from the past. The leader is obeyed by the people as a legitimate leader because of a formal or informal norm handed down by great leaders or managers from the past. This kind of leadership is based on customs and traditions of the business firms. The leader is not usually innovative but conservative. He or she is just continuing what is being practiced by the company based on tradition.

The ordination of a priest by a bishop is an example of traditional authority. The new priest received his power and authority by way of tradition, and people obey him as a legitimate spiritual pastor of the Church. Succession in monarchy is also done through traditional authority. Tradition dictates that only persons with royal blood can ascend to the throne.

3. Rational-Legal Leadership

The last type of leadership proposed by Max Weber is the most common type of authority in modern and contemporary society. This leadership is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. The leader assumes the right to exercise power over the people because the law says so.

The leader’s authority is held by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the offices they hold. The power of government officials, for instance, is determined by the offices to which they are appointed or elected because of their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these offices, they have a certain amount of power. But once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is also lost. Though personal traits also count in the selection process, a fixed law becomes the primary legitimizer of the leader’s capacity to exercise leadership. His authority expires when he retires or becomes incapacitated as stipulated by law.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

What kind of a leader are you? Which type of leadership do you aim to achieve?

Thanks for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

The German sociologist Max Weber identified three ideal types of leadership in which authority may rest: (1) charismatic, (2) traditional, and (3) rational-legal. In any society or institution, the power of the leader may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these 3 types of leadership.

1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership is founded on the personal traits and gifts of the leader. The more authentic these personal traits are as perceived by the people, the higher is the legitimacy of the leader. People obey the leader, not primarily because of certain laws or traditions, but because of his/her personal talents. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charismatic leadership tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive after the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. Charismatic leaders in history include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Asisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, etc.

In corporate settings, charismatic leaders like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are creative, innovative, and visionary people. They have extraordinary talents that ordinary managers do not possess. They usually introduce innovation, creativity, or unique management style in their business environments.

2. Traditional authority

Traditional leadership is one that is based on some sort of tradition that is handed down from the past. The leader is obeyed by the people as a legitimate leader because of a formal or informal norm handed down by great leaders or managers from the past. This kind of leadership is based on customs and traditions of the business firms. The leader is not usually innovative but conservative. He or she is just continuing what is being practiced by the company based on tradition.

The ordination of a priest by a bishop is an example of traditional authority. The new priest received his power and authority by way of tradition, and people obey him as a legitimate spiritual pastor of the Church. Succession in monarchy is also done through traditional authority. Tradition dictates that only persons with royal blood can ascend to the throne.

3. Rational-Legal Leadership

The last type of leadership proposed by Max Weber is the most common type of authority in modern and contemporary society. This leadership is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. The leader assumes the right to exercise power over the people because the law says so.

The leader’s authority is held by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the offices they hold. The power of government officials, for instance, is determined by the offices to which they are appointed or elected because of their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these offices, they have a certain amount of power. But once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is also lost. Though personal traits also count in the selection process, a fixed law becomes the primary legitimizer of the leader’s capacity to exercise leadership. His authority expires when he retires or becomes incapacitated as stipulated by law.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

What kind of a leader are you? Which type of leadership do you aim to achieve?

Thanks for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

The German sociologist Max Weber identified three ideal types of leadership in which authority may rest: (1) charismatic, (2) traditional, and (3) rational-legal. In any society or institution, the power of the leader may be exercised on the basis of a mixture of these 3 types of leadership.

1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership is founded on the personal traits and gifts of the leader. The more authentic these personal traits are as perceived by the people, the higher is the legitimacy of the leader. People obey the leader, not primarily because of certain laws or traditions, but because of his/her personal talents. Because it is a personalized form of authority, charismatic leadership tends to be unstable. It does not normally survive after the death of the original leader, and it often abandons the leader while he or she is alive. Charismatic leaders in history include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Asisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, etc.

In corporate settings, charismatic leaders like Steve Jobs, Jack Ma, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, to name a few, are creative, innovative, and visionary people. They have extraordinary talents that ordinary managers do not possess. They usually introduce innovation, creativity, or unique management style in their business environments.

2. Traditional authority

Traditional leadership is one that is based on some sort of tradition that is handed down from the past. The leader is obeyed by the people as a legitimate leader because of a formal or informal norm handed down by great leaders or managers from the past. This kind of leadership is based on customs and traditions of the business firms. The leader is not usually innovative but conservative. He or she is just continuing what is being practiced by the company based on tradition.

The ordination of a priest by a bishop is an example of traditional authority. The new priest received his power and authority by way of tradition, and people obey him as a legitimate spiritual pastor of the Church. Succession in monarchy is also done through traditional authority. Tradition dictates that only persons with royal blood can ascend to the throne.

3. Rational-Legal Leadership

The last type of leadership proposed by Max Weber is the most common type of authority in modern and contemporary society. This leadership is based on a set of rules, and the belief in the legitimacy of the process of rule creation and enforcement. This form of domination is routinized through bureaucracy. The leader assumes the right to exercise power over the people because the law says so.

The leader’s authority is held by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the offices they hold. The power of government officials, for instance, is determined by the offices to which they are appointed or elected because of their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these offices, they have a certain amount of power. But once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is also lost. Though personal traits also count in the selection process, a fixed law becomes the primary legitimizer of the leader’s capacity to exercise leadership. His authority expires when he retires or becomes incapacitated as stipulated by law.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

What kind of a leader are you? Which type of leadership do you aim to achieve?

Thanks for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

Users of social media often face the perennial issue of whether to add too many followers and connections or just maintain a few close business and professional connections in their accounts. On LinkedIn, your direct connections are also your followers. LinkedIn users with numerous connections and followers are usually honored by the network as thought leaders and influencers. On Facebook, your followers are your friends. On Twitter and other social media sites, your followers are those who follow you regardless of whether you follow them back or not. But aside from posting quality articles to attract many followers, there is no other effective way to expand one’s network except to send or accept invites. But how can one becomes an influencer if s/he is encouraged to just remain closely connected with his/her limited number of connections (around 500 on LinkedIn), discouraged to connect with the unfamiliar others or become open networkers (LIONs) or to go beyond the maximum limit of connections and friends? (e.g. 30,000 on LinkedIn or 5,000 friends on Facebook). Which is which: to limit one’s connections to maintain intimacy within the social network and to limit his/her social influence? Or expand one’s network to expand his/her social influence and to lessen his/her group intimacy in the network?

The Dilemma

Users face a dilemma with regard to the ideal number of connections and followers in the social media. To gain too many connections and followers implies lesser time for the user to interact closely with each member the social network: The higher is the number of followers, the lesser is his/her available time to spend quality time with all of them in the social network. But If the user does not accept too many connections and followers, especially those who are unfamiliar or strangers to him/her in order to maintain a strong bonding in the network, s/he limits his/her range of social influence and possibility to connect with the right people who might help him/her in his/her business or professional career. Thus, a recruiter who connects only with people whom s/he personally knows in real or digital life is incapacitated to meet new people and connect with the right applicants who can fill up his/her wanted list. Moreover, a limited number of connections, friends or followers in the social media implies low social impact which can make one’s profile less attractive to people and to the business world.

The Sociological Significance of Connections and Followers

There is a sociological basis why having many connections and followers is desirable than having only a few. There is a grain of truth to the idea that the number of followers or connection is the user’s “social” net worth in the social media and status scale. Sir Richard Branson who has more than 6 million followers on LinkedIn is obviously has a higher social net worth than anyone else in the world’s largest professional and business social networking site. Please take note that we are talking here of “social” not economic or monetary net worth which is the main criteria being used in identifying the richest people in the world. Some top influencers such as Branson or Gates, possess both a high social class (wealth) and social status (prestige). But there are others who are not be very rich and yet very high in social status because of their unique skills, level of achievement and high number of connections and followers in the social media Thus, a user with only 100 connections is obviously lesser in social status compared to somebody with 5,000 followers or more. The indicator of social class is primarily wealth, property and monetary net worth while social status is the person’s credential and level of prestige. In social media especially in LinkedIn where every user is presumed to belong to the middle or upper social classes, social status based on the user’s prestige (as reflected in the profile), popularity and number of connection and followers can be a strong differentiating factor among social media users.

The Power of Connection and Followers

The power of having more connections and followers can be felt directly by the user through the power of his/her invites: The higher is his/her number connections and followers, the more powerful is his/her invites in the social media. The acceptance rate of his/her invites is directly correlated with his/her number of connections and followers: the higher is the number of followers, the higher is the rate of acceptance of the invites. Having more followers and connections can also have a bandwagon effect: Who can resist connecting with popular accounts in case they invite you? Can you turn down an invitation, for instance, if Richard Branson, President Obama, Guy Kawasaki or other influencers ask you to connect on LinkedIn? Being connected with someone with a big following has an advantage to the one who is invited. If that person mentions you in their posts and updates or likes or comments in your posts or updates, his/her thousands of followers can view them and see your profile picture and headline as well, thus expanding your personal brand.

Resolving the Dilemma: Maintain Bonding with Close Friends/Connections but Expand Network

There is a third way to resolve the dilemma of whether to gain more followers or not:in the social media: Maintain and expand gradually one’s small group of intimate connections within one’s social network but continue to expand the number of connections and followers to increase social status and influence. Sociologically speaking, it is humanly impossible to maintain intimacy if one’s group or network is huge. In real life, when a person’s primary group increases in membership and becomes a secondary group, his/her personal bonding and intimacy with it declines, but his/her social status and influence in society climbs. And this is also true in online interaction in the social media.The increase of membership in a social network can decrease the level of intimacy between the user and all his/her followers. But it has an advantage. It also increases his/her social influence and marketability in the digital economy.

In sum, there is really no serious problem between maintaining social bonding with a few close connections and expanding one’s social network in the social media. Indeed, life, whether real or virtual, is full of contradictions and paradoxes; one just needs to be creative, empirical and innovative in his/her journey in the world of the social media!

Photo Credit:Pixabay.com
Thank you for reading this post. Subscribe or follow this blog via email to receive more updates.

A good and Christian leader should know the Principle of Subsidiarity to attain what is good of the majority or common good when running an organization or social system.

Undue interference of the powerful over the less powerful and the weak often happens in social life. The top CEO in a corporation, for instance, sometimes interfere in hiring new employees or in any minor policies ignoring the people in-charge, or a school administrator, bypassing the teacher, decides to retain a student despite serious violation of school rules, or the President of the country unreasonably interferes in a government bureau to facilitate the business transaction of a relative, or a U.S. president calls up a president of a poor country and forces him/her to pass a legislation that serves American interests, are only few of the instances where the powerful abuse their power to the detriment of the social welfare of the weak and powerless.

The attainment of the common good does not only require commitment to solidarity but also to the moral principle of subsidiarity. This principle is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (CSDC 185).

For the Church, subsidiarity is a mode of governance which protect people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfill their duties (CSDC # 187). The CST understands it as respecting the hierarchy of authorities and capabilities of various communities within a given social system: “[A] community of a higher order of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of needs and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good” (CA, n.48; cf. QA, nn.184-186).

Subsidiarity also opposes certain forms of centralization and bureaucratization in running a country or organization by top officials which stifle or ignore the freedom and creativity of people of lower social rank. Top-down management models–whether in an organizational or national level– which promote centralization of power at the top hierarchy and discourage democratic participation of lower levels in decision-making can jeopardize the social doctrine of subsidiarity.

The system of checks and balances can be weakened and the concentration of power at the top can lead to abuse and disregard of the common good. For instance, in one Catholic university managed by religious sisters, only the President and the Vice-President for Academic Affairs seem to run the school. Without genuine consultation and participation of employees and faculty, they create and impose new policies which are, at times, impractical and unreasonable. And since the management structure is too centralized, genuine participation of those in the lower levels–faculty, staff and students–is often neglected. Legally speaking, one can argue that the school administration has management prerogative. But in moral terms, one can argue if this is too much concentration of power is done to suit personal interest or protect favorite groups or individuals, then this centralization runs contrary to subsidiarity.

Photo Credit: Pixabay.com

Thank you for reading this post. Sign up with our newsletter or follow this blog via email for more updates.

Peace is a relative term for sociologists. It can mean different things to various peoples with distinct cultures. People agree little on what is peace. Perhaps the most popular (Western) view of peace is an absence of dissension, violence, or war, a meaning found in the New Testament and possibly an original meaning of the Greek word for peace, Irene.

Peace as absence of conflict is widely adopted by people called “pacifists” who assume that all violence is bad. This meaning is widely accepted among students of international relations. It is also the primary dictionary definition.

In oriental or Asian cultures, peace is generally seen as a harmony and tranquility. It is viewed as peace of mind or serenity. It is defined as a state of law or civil government, a state of justice or goodness, and a balance powers. The oriental or Eastern concept of peace is deeper than the Western notion. Peace is beyond absence of war but harmony and good will with neighbors who are perceived as true friends.

The Western and Eastern Concepts of Peace

When the US President Donald Trump met the North Korean President Kim Jung Un, the concept of peace became hybrid: The Western concept of peace as absence of conflict merged with its Eastern view as harmony and tranquility. Although the agreement that Trump and Kim signed in Singapore was just a framework, hopes are high that in the days to come the denuclearization of North Korea would take place and sanctions by the United States would be lifted. Thousands or probably millions of North Koreans would probably then experience a relief from poverty and global pressure, as well experience economic development in the the coming years with the lifting of the sanctions.

Other nations such as Japan, South Korea, and neighboring ASEAN countries and whole world would also benefit from this peace agreement between the United States and North Korea.

The Other Name of Peace is Development

From a Christian and Catholic perspective, peace in today’s global era is not just an absence of conflict between nations but also economic development. Nations must not only avoid conflict and war, but also help one another in the spirit of charity to achieve economic development and global solidarity. The late Pope Paul VI wrote a beautiful social encyclical on peace and development. The title of the document “Pacem in Terris” which means “peace on earth” provides the basic Christian principles on attaining global and societal peace:

Source: social-spirituality.net

With the summit of Trump and Kim Jung Un, it is hoped that the world is closer to the lasting peace and global stability. Citizens and Christian around the globe hope and pray that this summit would become a stepping stone for global peace and development!

Source: slideshare.net

Thank for reading this post. Follow this blog via email for more updates.